W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2003

checkpoint 5.4

From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:02:32 -0800
To: "'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501c2ddb8$e272f1e0$5f814094@rose>
Ian
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0020.html>
Jacobs, 06 Oct 2002
This checkpoint requires conformance to UAAG 1.0 Level A, but that is an
incomplete profile. Please refer to sections 3.1 and 3.3 of UAAG 1.0 for
information about how to include a UAAG 1.0 conformance profile in a
specification.

 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0080.html>
Terry Thompson, 21 Oct 2002
All content has a user interface, which makes this checkpoint redundant.
Should be "custom user interface".
 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0117.html>
IBM (via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002
This checkpoint is about making the user interface operable and would be
better organized as part of guideline 2.
 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0130.html>
SAP (via Audrey Weinland), 31 Oct 2002 



*	minimum level #1: This point needs to be clearer. We cannot tell
if we would need to follow these other guidelines. If a Web app runs in
a standard browser, does the interface still have to conform to the
other guidelines? What is considered an accessible alternative? A
text-only site? What would be an accessible alternative for a Web app
page?
*	level 2 #1: What does "or hidden within the page" mean? Variety
of assistive technologies" needs to be defined. Otherwise it's too
vague. Is it enough, for example, to target JAWS and MAGic?
*	level 2 reviewer's note: Not sure how it would be possible to
comply with the checkpoint without carrying out tests. The text
specifically says "the interface has been tested." Please clarify.

Remove this checkpoint and add to Checkpoint 5.3 a requirement that
custom interfaces comply with UAAG (not sure how to build upon a profile
for clarification).  A custom interface needs to expressed because there
are programs that require Web access to perform certain functions.
Without an accessible interface, the content provided could be
inaccessible and fall short of any requirements of new laws.  This also
gives room for laws to utilize without misunderstanding that web-based
applications or web-accessible applications should be developed in an
accessible manner.  I have seen Java-based applications that were
required to be redesigned because they accessed the web and were not
accessible - also, they did not meet the requirements of other
requirements of law.
 
Sincerely,
Lee Roberts
President/CEO
405-321-6372
Rose Rock Design, Inc.
http://www.roserockdesign.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 10:03:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT